• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

I worship at the altar of imaging

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
DSP is just the means to get to a neutral system. Sure, you can treat the room on top of that. The crucial point is what is "high fidelity"? How are the vinyl/valves/passive crossovers combining to achieve high fidelity if the measurements say they're not?
Yea true, accurate is HF but are mediocre drivers DSP'ed to hell in a shoe box HF?

Not into vinyl or valves they always sounded wrong to me.. The first thing you need for HF is a digital capture of the original music event then keep the mastering etc to minimum imo. I like the live jazz I have that's recorded strait to tape then digital transfer.. No multi track or mastering nonsense... Bliss, shame we could not go back in time and get rid of the tape but...
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Yea true, accurate is HF but are mediocre drivers DSP'ed to hell in a shoe box HF?
Presumably the measurements would tell us. If the DSP, for example, allowed several low cost drivers to be combined in an intelligent way, then the overall result might work better than a couple of the finest drivers driven conventionally.
 

TBone

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,191
Likes
348
Hmm. I didn't realise that neutral was a controversial concept.

C'mon, neutral has been used repeatedly over decades to describe many audio products, near every reviewer has used the phrase at one point or another.

Beyond that, the question is: if you think that imaging is not just a question of neutrality, then what is? This is what I would like to know! If there is something else, then what is the 'scientific' explanation for it? Just saying "Vinyl and valves image really well" doesn't offer an explanation of anything - and doesn't seem a very convincing assertion either.

Again, lets be clear, I'm 95% digital listener, with access to DSP via my ADC and I'm not the one claiming vinyl or valves image really well, although I've heard just that with some systems, and not others. This isn't as much about format, as it is your claim that active dsp based speakers bring you closer to neutrality, what-ever-that-means, without any objective evidence what-so-ever.

In other words, you're the one doing the deflecting ...
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Presumably the measurements would tell us. If the DSP, for example, allowed several low cost drivers to be combined in an intelligent way, then the overall result might work better than a couple of the finest drivers driven conventionally.
If that's true speaker designers can go get a proper job as we don't need them anymore :eek: :D
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
...without any objective evidence what-so-ever.
As discussed earlier, neutrality is an ideal (or a "concept" or "idea" if you prefer). In the real world you cannot achieve the ideal. But the sensible person recognises that we can compare between two options to say which is closer to the ideal.

Neutral - which is closer:

wax cylinder or LP?
wax cylinder or CD?
LP or CD?

It's obviously impossible to say.:)
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Because neutral is, apparently, impossible to define, or demonstrate with objective evidence, it highlights that there is no objective evidence that open ears are, in fact, neutral. Who says neutral is best anyway? Indeed, it could well be the case that live music could be enjoyed much better with 'supplementary hearing modifiers' that introduce levels of noise, euphonic distortion, crosstalk, compression, wow and flutter. Analogue only, of course. :)
 

TBone

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,191
Likes
348
As discussed earlier, neutrality is an ideal (or a "concept" or "idea" if you prefer). In the real world you cannot achieve the ideal. But the sensible person recognises that we can compare between two options to say which is closer to the ideal.

Neutral - which is closer:

wax cylinder or LP?
wax cylinder or CD?
LP or CD?

It's obviously impossible to say.:)

Again, you're deflecting the real issue, this isn't format related.

The focus here, rather, is your claim of neutrality/imaging w/active dsp speakers, without providing any data and then claiming that's not in any way subjective ...
 

NorthSky

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
4,998
Likes
937
Location
Canada West Coast/Vancouver Island/Victoria area
This (great imaging):
df53828fd7a03f3996d04110.L.jpg


And this:
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,072
Likes
16,605
Location
Central Fl
Batten down the hatches Ray!
Things still fairly mild here but radar looks a little rougher in your neck.
Take care.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
Hmm. I didn't realise that neutral was a controversial concept. Is there any data that defines "neutral"? It would possibly include a few zeroes and infinities to which a person well versed in the art of deflection would say "You can't have zero/infinity in the real world". This is no different from the well-known "Everything matters". A statement of the truth at one level, but of no practical use whatsoever.

Well, try this:
  • given a choice between high distortion and zero distortion, neutral would be zero. If we can't get zero - blah blah there's no such thing etc. etc. - then we get as low as possible.
  • given a choice between high noise and zero noise, neutral would be zero. If we can't get zero - blah blah there's no such thing etc. etc. - then we get as low as possible.
  • given a choice between high stereo crosstalk and zero crosstalk, neutral would be zero. If we can't get zero - blah blah there's no such thing etc. etc. - then we get as low as possible.
  • given a choice between poor cone control and perfect cone control, neutral would be perfect. If we can't get perfect - blah blah there's no such thing etc. etc. - then we get as close as possible.
etc. etc.


To those who mention the room's effects, well we hear the direct sound first and it would seem logical that any 'imaging' will be primarily defined by that.

Beyond that, the question is: if you think that imaging is not just a question of neutrality, then what is? This is what I would like to know! If there is something else, then what is the 'scientific' explanation for it? Just saying "Vinyl and valves image really well" doesn't offer an explanation of anything - and doesn't seem a very convincing assertion either.

I do not think anyone is arguing against "neutrality" in sound reproduction. We want that, as far as the idea goes. But, in common semantic use in audio, "neutrality" is about just frequency response and basic distortion. So, what is "neutral" when it comes to a complex, 3 dimensional sound field composed of direct and reflected sound? Yes, there is some basic guidance there provided for speakers in playback by the Harman testing. But, measures of frequency response or distortion alone do not define or tell the whole story of imaging.

I still believe you are inaccurately minimizing the role of reflected energy, not only in the room in playback, but also in the recording venue itself. Mikes do not hear like people do, so even different mikes with nice flat, on axis frequency response may pick up something different in the venue live depending on their spatial response patterns. They deliver a different image as a result. So, which mike pattern is more "neutral", even if on axis frequency response is flat?

Direct sound superficially dominates our sense of hearing. In fact, many believe quite incorrectly that only direct sound is important. The rest of the sound field, reflected energy, is unimportant, they think, again superficially and incorrectly. But, the Haas Effect makes clear that sonic perception of wavefronts has much to do with timing. Earlier sounds dominate our perception and mask the presence of later, reflected sounds. The presence of those later masked sounds, mainly reflections, becomes perceptable only if they are removed or altered from the original. And, many experiments have shown that the room acoustic, including reflections inseparable by the ear's timing response from the direct sound, alter the perceived sound in significant ways, tonally and spatially. Even cave men knew that spoken sounds in the cave were quite different from those outdoors from the same speaker. They probably just did not understand why, the same as many audiophiles today.

Obviously, the ear is able to separate longer timing intervals between direct and reflected sound as distinct and identifiable echo or reverb. But, much reflected sound is inseparable from direct sound, beneath the ear's timing threshold, and comingles with direct sound in a non-obvious way, altering the perceived sound.

Empirically by many studies in the concert hall, listeners in all but the first few rows are hearing a lot more diffuse, reflected energy than direct sound. Where is the "neutrality" in all that, especially if listening in stereo which throws away the directional information, except for frontal L-R and phantom images in between, including the depth phantom. But, the sound energy in the hall is actually omnidirectional, not just all coming from up front. And, our ears are omnidirectional. Again, "neutrality" does not answer this.

So, where am I headed with all this? For one thing, it is why I think Mch is a closer approach to live sound in the hall because it preserves much of the omnidirectional properties of reflected sound via a surrounding speaker array and phantom imaging in between. That is as opposed to stereo, where everything is directed or artificially redirected at you from the front.

Systems may be measurably and subjectively "neutral" in frequency response or other measures, yet still differ dramatically in imaging.

But, even in stereo, listening room reflections may appreciably narrow or widen the apparent image by altering the mix of direct sound to room reflected sound, as well as the direction from which the reflected energy predominantly emanates. That is true even with a certifiably "neutral" system. I would have thought that by now everyone has experienced this by experimenting with speaker toe in or other placement issues. And, note that I am not talking here about room modal issues in the bass.
 
OP
H

hvbias

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
574
Likes
411
Location
US
If I sit and fiddle with my (DSP-based) speakers' crossover settings, I can do all sorts to mess up the sound - frequency response etc. but the imaging isn't really affected (if my definition of imaging is the same as yours, that is). Voices and instruments stick to the same places left to right. In fact, the imaging creates such a strong illusion of reality, that I think the frequency response maladjustments are forgiven more easily than if the imaging was woolly. Imaging may be the DSP active speaker's secret weapon...

What causes the imaging to go wonky? Deliberately screwing with the crossovers, lets say instead of the advanced DSP based crossover mimicking a standard textbook electrical crossover?

Having drivers operating out of their linear range (shallow first order crossovers)?

Even actives without DSP image very well. Distinctly better than passive systems.

Tim

Tim have you heard the big ATC actives (100, 150)? I wanted to love the active towers so much but the imaging was so poor on them.

I wanted to put it down to mediocre measured off axis performance (there is no smooth directivity index, IIRC one of the things Toole said was important in their blind listening tests), but others here are saying that doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:

NorthSky

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
4,998
Likes
937
Location
Canada West Coast/Vancouver Island/Victoria area
Last edited:

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
What causes the imaging to go wonky? Deliberately screwing with the crossovers, lets say instead of the advanced DSP based crossover mimicking a standard textbook electrical crossover?

Having drivers operating out of their linear range (shallow first order crossovers)?
Well, (as much ripped apart by others!), my view is that the imaging remains largely intact as long as the channels are matched in all respects. They may not be correct in the frequency response, or absolutely correct in the time domain, but as long as they are not distorting (which would cause a mismatch between the channels), the imaging remains. So mimicking the filtering characteristics of a passive crossover wouldn't directly lead to a problem. However, shallow crossovers might lead to distortion which would mush up the imaging - because if, say, there's more bass in the right than the left, then a sound that is central will intermodulate with it more with the right than the left = a discrepancy between left and right for that sound = mushed imaging. In the same vein, a three-way speaker would be expected to image better than a two-way, everything else being equal.

We are told that timing is vital (MQA etc.) and if there's anything remotely in this, then maybe there's further imaging gains to be had from absolute phase and timing accuracy, but I understand that this is an extremely controversial view that science has discredited over many decades. When the MQA people talk about timing being vital, it doesn't apply to speakers... apparently.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
This thread reminds me of a conversation I had with someone many years ago about their latest, expensive, vinyl-based system. My friend said "It's particularly good when it starts to image." At the time, it struck me as odd, and I assumed that there was yet another level in audio that I had not yet experienced. In fact, this was true, because I hadn't yet heard DSP* based active systems. But as Keith has described, with a DSP based active system there is no question of waiting for it to "start to image"! It leaps out at you. I can imagine that maybe some people don't actually like that, though. Personally, I think it is a good thing.

* in a small font to try to minimise the annoyance that it causes
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
(big sigh)
What's the problem now?

In what units do you want the "objective evidence" to be specified in? Because if there are no units for imaging, and it cannot be measured, and neutrality is indefinable and not accepted as a valid criterion of anything (I tried!), you may have a long wait. Does imaging, in fact, exist? Not scientifically it seems. A subjective description will have to suffice and you can ignore it if you want.

Next time you say (hypothetically) something like "I exist" or "The veneer was beautifully applied" or "We turned them up until the windows rattled", I will be waiting to pounce with "Where's the objective evidence?" :)
 
Last edited:

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,051
Likes
12,150
Location
London
The Kiis/Beolabs offer the most sharply located imaging I have heard.
I can compare the Kiis here to PSI, Manger,and soon ATC.
The Kiis are designed to be virtual point sources it makes sense that they image well, with the Beolabs you can choose between the width of 'beam' it is simplicity to flick between options, narrow beam,high latency has the sharpest imaging and best SQ.
Keith
 
Top Bottom